Commonwealth 'network for future'

by Phoenix One UK Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:23 am

First topic message reminder :

Commonwealth 'network for future'

pa.press.net, Updated: 28/10/2011 05:55

...

Asked whether the Commonwealth was outdated, he said: "It is an organisation for the future. We live in a world of networks and this is a great network: a third of the world's population, 54 different countries across six continents. But not just a network, a network with values about promoting human rights and democracy and freedom.

For full text link: http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/commonwealth-network-for-future-8

Unquote: =======================

This debate was started within another forum the date this article was published.

note [Foreign Secretary William Hague] said, ''We want to see the Commonwealth strengthening its role as a standard bearer for human rights and democracy. It remains uniquely placed to do so; the sheer diversity of its membership gives it the potential to speak with a truly global moral authority.''

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8854601/David-Cameron-Commonwealth-must-strengthen-human-rights.html

Unquote.

Note Commonwealth nations are pushing to establish a system of export and credit guarantees designed to promote trade and growth for the poorer countries in the 54-member organization.

Quote:

Leaders from the group, which owes its origins to the former British Empire, have met this week in Perth where many hope Europe's financial crisis and growing concerns over growth will lend the meeting renewed relevance, especially among developing nations. Commonwealth countries account for a third of world's population and five of its members sit on the Group of 20 nations.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577002922751910902.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Unquote.

Note you can acquire a great deal of information directly from the Commonwealth Secretariat's website on

Link: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/

I also noted some europhiles here are pushing the trade arguement as being a benefit of being an EU member. Not so, that argument was shot down in flames long ago.

Here is a direct link to the World Trade Organisation: http://www.wto.org/

If you visit the membership listed therein, note all 27 EU members are als members of the WTO, including Greece. Not one requires the EU for trade, and never did.

by bobby Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:36 am

tlttf wrote:bobby, is your bitterness anything to do with 1/2 your lineage being Italian?

Hello Landy, hows tricks. You are absolutely correct. In fact I wrote a longish post yesterday in answer to Sharina, yet somehow its vanished. Who moderates the moderators, thats what I now want to know. I saw the post, yet next time I looked it vanished, I can only assume the moderator removed it, and funny enough the moderator is Sharina herself.

by bobby Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:49 am

Ivan. Can you please find out what happened to a post I made yesterday. As you are aware I am being attacked on two fronts re the Americans at war, Sharina posted a reply some of which was totally non-sensical, and I was challenged to give a reply. This I did in quite some detail and truth, and hey presto, one minute it was there, the next it was gone.
It leaves me with no other thoughts than it has been moderated. At no point did I break any of cutting edges rules, I may have with honesty and truth ruffled some Yankee feathers. Has that now become a reason to have a post removed, if indeed that is what happened. If not I shall make a personal appology to sharina for my assumption. Bob.

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:06 pm

bobby. I've no idea what happened to your message and I've sent you a PM. Shirina enjoys answering critical responses, so it's highly unlikely that she deleted it; a technical glitch is the most probable explanation.

P.S. Congratulations on posting our 2000th message. Your reward is life membership of the Pease Pottage Conservative Club and dinner with brownboots1.
Evil or Very Mad

by astra Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:48 pm

re the missing post -

I had one which when the send button was pressed did not come up in forum. I re wrote it, copied and sent, and again it did not appear. whem I pasted it again - presto up it came, theis was about 20.00hrs last night.

We have a post swallowing Gremlin!

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:00 pm

According to the forum security log, no moderation was undertaken yesterday, so I can confirm that Shirina most definitely did not delete bobby's message.

by Charlatan Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:09 pm

The european union is essential in matters of promoting peace inside and outside europe. They will use a good rapport to negotiate their way out of nearly anything.

by Shirina Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:17 pm

I saw the post, yet next time I looked it vanished, I can only assume the moderator removed it, and funny enough the moderator is Sharina herself.

Why would I delete your post? In fact, I was wondering if you were going to respond.

I had the same problem the other day. I wrote a post - in fact I think it was the last post I wrote in this thread - and when I clicked the "send" button, all I got was a blank white screen. I just hit the "back" button on my browser until I saw my post again and resent it. It worked the second time.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:33 pm

From time to time I too have experienced "lost" messages. If you examine the complexity of the system which passes mail from point to point through a series of computers it needn't be surprising that some things do just get lost in the interstices of hyperpace.

Frustrating, but when so much else is blamed on "The Computer", conspiracy theories ought not to come to mind first.

by astra Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:00 pm

I just hit the "back" button on my browser until I saw my post again and resent it.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

mine had disappeared altogether, tried the back button and only ended back on you tube! Sad

by Guest Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:27 pm

Compose on Microsoft Word (which has "Spell Check" in at least two versions of English), copy and paste here, and if one's message get's eaten, it's all good, because all one need do is copy and paste again.

by bobby Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:41 pm

Sharina, please accept my appology, in the years I have been on MSN, pro boards and here on cutting edge, I have never had a post dissapear either through glitch or moderation. Again, sorry for thinking you may have had something to do with it. As Ivan said it seems unlikely as yo do come accross as someone who embraces confrontation, and I dont mean that as an insult.
Later when I may have a bit more time I will try to remember what I wrote and send my answer.

by bobby Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:11 pm

Sharina, said.
You only question their motives because you're biased. If you're going to question the motives of American fliers, then you had best question the motive of every non-British pilot who flew. Otherwise you're just being a wee bit bigoted.

The simple answer is, There where several countries other than the UK involved directly in the Battle of Britain and provided the following Polots:

Poland 145
New Zealand 135
Canada 112
Czechoslovakia 88
Australia 32
Belgium 28
South Africa 25
France 13
Ireland 10
United States 7 as recognise by the RAF.
Ceylon 1
Jamaica 1
Southern Rhodesia 1
Unknown 7

If we remove, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Their motives where simply that their Countries had all been over run by Germany and would have fought with Lucifer to get back at the Germans. As for the remainder all but two are part of the British Commonwealth. One of the two is Ireland, many Irish although holding an Irish Passport lived and worked in the UK, many where actually born in the UK an had never even seem their mother land so had a certain allegiance to Britain , Leaving The 7 Americans, I cant think as to why they wanted to risk their lives for a war that had nothing to do with them, so perhaps we need an honest American to tell us.

It wasn’t those that went and fought who made the money, it was them that stayed at home, so my answer is, one does not profit by volunteering to risk ones life in someone else’s battle, the ones who profited are those that went nowhere.. You will need to wait a bit longer for your awaited squirm-fest.
By the way I like that expression, I haven’t heard it before.

Please show me where I said that America where obligated to enter the war, I never said or believe any such thing.

You call me biased, the simple answer to that is yes I am. You call me a bigot, you couldn’t be farther from the truth.

My reasons for my attitude are because of the multitude of cock ups made in Italy by American Generals, either through bigotry as in Mark Clarks hatred of the English, and fowl ups by the liked of general Lucas.

As I’m sure you are aware, Clark commanded the US 5th Army who fought up the boot of Italy on the west (Mediterranean side) whereas Montgomery commanded the British 8th Army and where on the east coast (Adriatic coast).

Both army’s came to a halt at the Gustav line, due to strong German resistance. The Americans had a couple of attempts at breaking through to the Liri Valley by failed due to strong resistance and swollen rivers. I was left to the Polish to finally break the deadlock. The American forces then took the lead.
Mark Clark was ordered by General Alexander C in C to turn right and squeeze the Germans between the 5th and 8th army’s Thus destroying their ability to continue the resistance. Alexander didn’t allow for true bigotry on the part of Marl Clark, he chose to take his troops straight on to Rome, for no other reason than, he wanted to be the first General to lead an army into Rome from the South, since Julius Caesar, he even went so far as to say, that any British troops found beating him to Rome would be shot.
Because of Mark Clark all the German troops holding the Gustav line where able to retreat to the Caesar line and instead of being dead, wounded or prisoners, all had to be fought again, how many British and American troops lost their lives for this mans vanity.
Then we had the landings at Nettunno otherwise known as Anzio. General Lucas led a force of British and American troops on the beachhead, and instead of going inland whilst Anzio was in a reasonably weakened state, the silly bugger decided to dig in and consolidate his position on the beach. This gave Kesselring time to get troops into the area, and again many Allied troops lost their lives unnecessarily.

Most of the towns and villages caught up in the war Zone where destroyed by at least 90%, this was by American Carpet Bombing. Milano, Torino and Genova all had more bombs dropped on them individually than Britain had through the entire Blitz.
Lastly (for now) Was my Auntie Corinna who is my Mothers younger sister, received a wound in her leg, when An American Mustang took it upon himself to strafe a road full of Italian women and children. So please understand my dislike for Americans, especially when it comes to war.

by Guest Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:15 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
For the sake of concise precision, the English language cries out for the inclusion of “y’all” as the recognized plural of “you.”

bobby wrote:
Just like sport, you take up our games and change them beyond all recognition

You don’t own “our games”; thus, your proprietary use of “our” in your phrase “our games” is inappropriate, inaccurate, and arrogant.

bobby wrote:
now you are advocating the same with our Language

You don’t own “our Language”; thus, once again, your proprietary use of “our” in your phrase “our Language” is inappropriate, inaccurate, and arrogant.

bobby wrote:
Its only you Americans that use the expression y'all

English is spoken as a first language by a preponderance of the citizenry of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Belize (I believe), the American and British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and other locales.

Your word “only” explicitly posits exclusivity; thus, in order for your contention to be true, no non-American (USV) English speaking person alive today anywhere in the world uses, has ever used, or will ever use, “the expression y’all.”

Please post your poll instrument and your poll results. I expect your sample size (“n”) to be equal to the entire English-speaking population of the world minus the English-speaking population of America USV.

bobby wrote:
and as far as I am concerned it should stay on the other side of the pond.

As you lack omnipotence, “as far as [you] are concerned” has no bearing as to which “side of the pond” it “should stay on.”

bobby wrote:
By the way ROC, I have an appology to make, there where in fact a total of nine American Pilots in the Battle of Britain, a few more than a couple but still relatively insignificant, and I still question their motives.

Apology accepted. Accuracy (‘… a total of nine American Pilots in the Battle of Britain…”) refuted.

“Ten American pilots flew with units under the command of RAF Fighter Command between 10 July and 31 October 1940, thereby qualifying for the Battle of Britain clasp to the 1939-45 British campaign star.”

Retrieved 11 November 2011 from http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/BofBamericanpilots.shtml

Moreover…

“Some of the above individuals [ten American pilots] later became members of the three Eagle Squadrons made up of exclusively of American pilots and formed between September 1940 and October 1941.”

“… the Americans who flew in the Eagle Squadrons – 244…”

Retrieved 11 November 2011 from http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/BofBamericanpilots.shtml

bobby wrote:
… other than the nine Yank pilots the USA where at that time still contemplating the profits to be made.

“Ten American pilots flew with units under the command of RAF Fighter Command between 10 July and 31 October 1940… American pilots were drawn across the Atlantic by the urgency of defending democracy in Europe…”

“The first American to give his life in the Battle of Britain was Pilot Officer William M.L. Fiske of No. 601 Squadron… he died in hospital on 17 August 1940 after bringing back his damaged Hurricane to Tangmere.”

“Of all the Americans who flew in the Eagle Squadrons - 244 - over 50% ware WIA, KIA or POWs by the time the 4th FG was established in the US 8th Air Force.”

Retrieved 11 November 2011 from http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/BofBamericanpilots.shtml

bobby wrote:
As for me holding a poll as to if the Battle of Britain pilots fought for the benefit of the USA…

I see neither poll instrument nor poll results in your response; thus, you contention remains unsubstantiated by data.

bobby wrote:
You weren't even in the war in 1940, in fact you didn't get into the War untill December 1941

I wasn’t alive in 1940; I wasn’t alive in December 1941.

bobby wrote:
… the majority of american troops on the European front didn't actualy see action untill D'Day…

North Africa:

Sicily:

Italy:

Anzio (specifically):

My uncle received a Purple Heart at Anzio. He almost didn’t make it.

bobby wrote:
… where again the British out numbered the American contingent.

The Americans outnumbered the British at Guadalcanal, Port Moresby, Tinian, Iwo Jima, Okinawa…

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:28 pm

The Americans outnumbered the British at Guadalcanal, Port Moresby, Tinian, Iwo Jima, Okinawa….

Sometimes described as "a statement of the bleedin' obvious". There were spheres of influence, the Pacific and Sea of Japan being the exclusive concern of the US allies. Largely due to the enormous ego of General Douglas McArthur - smarting from his earlier eviction from Manila.

by Shirina Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:01 am

So please understand my dislike for Americans, especially when it comes to war.

Actually no, I don't understand it. According to your post, you dislike 310 million Americans because of a vainglorious general and a Mustang pilot. Does that really make a lot of sense to you? This is especially true given that most of those 310 million Americans were not even alive at the time. I have to wonder if you feel the same animosity toward the Germans ... and let's not forget that Italy sided with Adolf Hitler, so getting your towns bombed was par for the course. Did you think that American planes would somehow spare towns filled with hostile Germans and Italians? Perhaps if Italy had not gone off in pursuit of a new Roman Empire, things would have been different. Disliking Americans for attacking a nation that declared war on them seems rather bizarre to me.

While you may not have said directly that America was obligated to defend Britain, your words so heavily imply it that you're 99% along the way to saying just that. I have read a lot of posts by indignant Brits who still feel resentment that America didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor. So I have to ask ... if these people did not think America was obligated, why the indignation?

Apology accepted about the lost post mix-up. I wasn't angry at all, but I was somewhat surprised. Believe me, I don't debate by deleting posts. I'd much rather argue. LOL!

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:55 am

oftenwrong wrote:
The Americans outnumbered the British at Guadalcanal, Port Moresby, Tinian, Iwo Jima, Okinawa….

Sometimes described as "a statement of the bleedin' obvious". There were spheres of influence, the Pacific and Sea of Japan being the exclusive concern of the US allies.

In early 1942, the United States requested the assistance of Royal Navy warships, including carriers, to aid the outgunned and outnumbered United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and United States Army Air Corps in defending Midway. The United States was rebuffed.

oftenwrong wrote:
Largely due to the enormous ego of General Douglas McArthur - smarting from his earlier eviction from Manila.

The Americans outnumbered the British at Bataan, Corregidor…

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:40 am

bobby wrote:
[Battle of Britain non-British aviators:]

New Zealand 135
Canada 112
Australia 32

Not one German or Italian aviator in the lot. And only thirteen French aviators.

You’ve provided compelling evidence in support of the United Kingdom to ditch the European Union and its ‘big dogs”, Germany, Italy, and France, which, once again, provided all of thirteen aviators to the RAF during the Battle of Britain, compared to Poland (also conquered by German), which provided one hundred forty-five aviators, Czechoslovakia (also conquered, or “annexed”, by German), which provided eighty-eight aviators, and Belgium (also conquered by German), which provided twenty-eight aviators.

As for the Commonwealth? Why, you’ve documented it yourself. A total of two hundred seventy-nine aviators from three Commonwealth countries, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, and three hundred seven aviators when one includes South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Jamaica, and Ceylon, none of which countries were in imminent danger of German invasion.

bobby wrote:
… my Auntie Corinna who is my Mothers younger sister, received a wound in her leg, when An American Mustang took it upon himself to strafe a road full of Italian women and children. So please understand my dislike for Americans, especially when it comes to war.

Your auntie was Italian, on an Italian road, in Mussolini’s Italy, which had declared war on and was engaged in war with the United States. Blame Mussolini, blame no one at all, or continue blaming American aviators who helped free your auntie’s country from Mussolini’s tyranny.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:48 am

I haven't seen any mention of the valiant Polish fighter-pilots who fought with the RAF.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/polish_pilots_britain.htm

by witchfinder Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:46 pm

Reference: War of 1812

No one realy won that particular war, American and Canadian historians regard the outcome as a stalemate, the British / Canadians had some success, as did the Americans, it was negotiations and a treaty which ended that particular conflict.

Reference: The Commonwealth

Great institution, and a good idea in which nations with a shared history work together for the good of the world, but the idea that the Commonwealth could be reconstituted as a trading block is not logical.

The most important markets for Australia and New Zealand is Southeast Asia - Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and China, whilst Canada s biggest trading partner by a long way is the United States.

Look at trade between India and the UK, in terms of relevance it comes a long way down the table, we do more trade with Ireland ( 4 million people ) than we do with India ( 1.1 Billion people ).

Common sense dictates that if you are going to belong to a trading block, then you may aswell go the whole way and create a common customs area.
If you have a common trade and customs area, then you may aswell go down the road of common standards, a fully integrated economy, political co-operation, planning and regulation.

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:35 pm

Sharina said

"so getting your towns bombed was par for the course. Did you think that American planes would somehow spare towns filled with hostile Germans and Italians? Perhaps if Italy had not gone off in pursuit of a new Roman Empire, things would have been different. Disliking Americans for attacking a nation that declared war on them seems rather bizarre to me."

Sharina, the attacks I mention all happened during the war for Italy, when on mainland Italy. The Italian Government signed the armistice papers on Sept 3rd 1943, and declared publicly Sept 8th 1943. The first Allied landings in Italian Mainland where at Salerno on Sept 3rd 1943 (my Dad was one of them) At that point Italy was still at war with the Allies, but only for a further 5 days when the armistice came into force, so the attrocities I mentioned happened well after the time Italian troops where actualy suporting the Allies, as where many thousands of Partisans, relatives of mine included. Another attrocity was the bombing of Monte Casino. The pilots for this raid where Roman Catholic volunteers, this was in the hope that they would only do what had to be done, they where ordered to bomb and bomb only, yet that wasn't enough for some of the trigger happy gunners and many of them strafed the monestary as well.
So Sharina I find it Bizzare that you seem to think it OK, for American airmen to shoot, bomb and kill Italian Civilians that where at war with the allies (past tense). Surely an amistice means that Italy at the time of the attrocities where not the enemy

Roconwhatzit said

"Not one German or Italian aviator in the lot. And only thirteen French aviators."

Why on earth would the RAF have German or Italian pilots in their ranks, at that point in the war they where both the enemy. As for the French, perhaps you had better ask them why they as a Nation had no stomach for war.
Also would you please read what I have said to Sharina at the begining of this post.

You have both shown yourselves to as nasty as each other, and I can only assume that what also happened at My Lai in Vietnam was also OK by Y'All as, some of the people in Vietnam where also at war with the USA.

The My Lai massacre was a result of a global superpower invading a small country in order to attempt to keep it within it's sphere of influence. The war against the civilians of Vietnam was unrelenting and ruthless, and millions were killed. The My Lai massacre was the one that was most widely known, but it was one of hundreds of similar massacres. Despite the attempts of Colin Powell to suppress knowledge of it, courageous and patriotic Americans uncovered the war crime.

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:02 pm

rockonbrother said.
"Your auntie was Italian, on an Italian road, in Mussolini’s Italy,"

You really are a silly little Billy. Where else would you expect an Italian girl in Italy to be walking, of course she was on an Italian road, and as they where not at that time enemy's of the USA, should have been able to do so without some trigger happy Yankee pilot taking it upon himself to shoot up Italian women and children.
As for it being Mussolini's Italy, again another error by you. Mussolini.s power ended with the signing of the armistice and that was back on 3rd Sept 1943, by the time the war reached the north, where Rimini is, it had moved on almost a Year.
Tell me, you seem to think you are a clever geezer, how long after an armistice is ratified and many of the previous beligarants are now fighting on the same side as yours, cease to be the enemy.

by **Ivan** Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:26 pm

witchfinder wrote:-
Reference: War of 1812. No one really won that particular war

I've always regarded it as a British defeat, when we finally gave up all hope of regaining our 'thirteen colonies'.

The was finished in 1814, but because of the slow communications in those days, news of the cessation of hostilities didn't get through in time to prevent the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815. That was certainly a British defeat and cost the lives of over 2,000 British troops.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:59 pm

bobby wrote:
Roconwhatzit…

My account name is “RockOnBrother.” I have corrected your disrespectful personal reference to me below (in brackets).

bobby wrote:
[RockOnBrother] said

"Not one German or Italian aviator in the lot. And only thirteen French aviators."

Why on earth would the RAF have German or Italian pilots in their ranks, at that point in the war they where both the enemy.

Then perhaps you’ve an answer as to why the UK embraces in trust a nation whose leadership and military tried to destroy its military infrastructure, its capital city, its citizens, and its existence as a free, democratic country from 1940 through 1945 while simultaneously partially turning its back (at least economically) on its Commonwealth brother nations whose citizens volunteered to join their UK brothers in service to the mother country as RAF aviators in the darkest days of World War II.

I “get” Witchfinder’s and Ivan’s logic to a certain degree, and I continue to respect both of my British brothers, but I wouldn’t trust (and I don’t trust) Germany, particularly if Germany were to have any say in my countries internal and external politics, and even more particularly if Germany had any say in my countries sovereignty.

bobby wrote:
As for the French, perhaps you had better ask them why they as a Nation had no stomach for war.

I hadn’t “better ask” the French anything. I don’t trust the French, period.

bobby wrote:
You have both shown yourselves to as nasty as each other…

I assume your “both” refers to Shirina and RockOnBrother, neither of whom has “shown [ourself] to be nasty as each other.”

bobby wrote:
… and I can only assume that what also happened at My Lai in Vietnam was also OK by Y'All as, some of the people in Vietnam where also at war with the USA.

You are free to erroneously “assume” anything you choose to erroneously “assume.”

bobby wrote:
The My Lai massacre was a result of a global superpower invading a small country in order to attempt to keep it within it's sphere of influence.

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
The war against the civilians of Vietnam was unrelenting and ruthless, and millions were killed.

True.

The Viet Cong’s and NVA’s “war against the civilians of Vietnam” was in fact “unrelenting and ruthless”, and in fact “millions were killed”, tortured, and mutilated by the Viet Cong and NVA.

bobby wrote:
The My Lai massacre was the one that was most widely known, but it was one of hundreds of similar massacres.

Please post your documentation that the “My Lai massacre” was in fact “one of hundreds of similar massacres.”

bobby wrote:
Despite the attempts of Colin Powell to suppress knowledge of it, courageous and patriotic Americans uncovered the war crime.

You have presented your potentially libelous accusation against Colin Powel without documentation.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:35 pm

Ivan wrote:
witchfinder wrote:-
Reference: War of 1812. No one really won that particular war
I've always regarded it as a British defeat, when we finally gave up all hope of regaining our 'thirteen colonies'.

Ivan,

Please believe that I’ll “claim” any victory achieved by the United States. The War of 1812 was not one of them. Understand that, by 1812, the Government of the United States had been functioning for more than two decades (since no later than 15 December 1791), and that the US had in fact achieved at least one military victory.

All we were able to do in 1812-1814, and just barely at that, was to hang on to our sovereignty and independence, and that’s not because we defeated anyone. Y’all just got tired of fighting us stubborn mules, and decided to talk instead of fight, which was fine by us, because we were pretty much “plumb”, as I “plumb wore out.”

You seem to forget a certain White House that didn’t spontaneously combust, and a certain fort that y’all shelled and rocketed (and “rocked”) at will one night while the British fleet from which the shells and rockets originated stood unopposed in Chesapeake Bay.

Thank y’all for allowing us to consider that 1812-1814 war a draw, and thank y’all for going to the negotiating table.

Ivan wrote:
… news of the cessation of hostilities didn't get through in time to prevent the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815. That was certainly a British defeat and cost the lives of over 2,000 British troops.

And had the Battle of New Orleans not occurred after formal cessation of hostilities (not “US victory”, but “cessation of hostilities”) what do you think might have happened? I think we “dodged the bullet”, because y’all might have just gotten mad enough to let loose with everything y’all had, and then it would have been “Katy bar the door.”

If I’m not mistaken, since 1791, the United States has declared war only five times, 1812, 1848, 1898, 1917, and 1941. The last four were victories, which the United States would not have been in existence to achieve and help achieve had the British not said, in effect, “the hell with it, it’s your thing, do what you wanna do” to your mule-headed future brothers. But we got our stubbornness honestly, from our British forefathers, especially our Scots and Scots-Irish forefathers, which put my future other country in good shape in 1836, when we told Ol’ Santa Anna which bridge to jump off into which river.

“Remember the Alamo.”

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:38 pm

Well, that neatly disposes of The French, The Germans and The Italians - a mere Two hundred Million people who will probably not commit mass suicide when they learn of one American gentleman's opinion of them.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Well, that neatly disposes of The French, The Germans and The Italians - a mere Two hundred Million people who will probably not commit mass suicide when they learn of one American gentleman's opinion of them.

No? Gee.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:45 pm

Into each life a little rain must fall.

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:02 pm

Rockonwatzit. Why instead of deffending barbarity, try putting your hands up and say, Yes we yanks have been bastards, but now are only little bastards.

As for that Colin Powel, if he doesn't agree with what I have said, then let him sue me.

Strange isn't it, how easy it is for you to defend attrocities commited by the Country you are so proud to belong to. Everything I have said about US attrocities in both Italy and Vietnam is common knowledge, well to all but you Yanks. Regarding Italy may I point you to a book, Titled "ITALY'S SORROW by James Holland, published by Harper Press. It would probably be a total waste of your time reading a factual account of events, but it just might give you a flavour of the truth, and you never know, you may even like it.
All I said about The USA's viscious war against the Vietnamese is also common knowledge and is available in many versions on google.Neverthe less, I will if you insist, search for the very article I read this very day, but be prepared to find you are wrong yet again.

Or could I be totally wrong and all of your bombing shooting a killing of inocent civilians be put down to another trait of American Warfare "Friendly Fire" , if that is the case it must be heartwarming for Y'All to have so many Friends.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:05 pm

bobby wrote:
[RockOnBrother] said [corrected by RockOnBrother].
"Your auntie was Italian, on an Italian road, in Mussolini’s Italy,"

You really are a silly little Billy.

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
Where else would you expect an Italian girl in Italy to be walking, of course she was on an Italian road

Okay.

bobby wrote:
as they where not at that time enemy's of the USA, should have been able to do so without some trigger happy Yankee pilot taking it upon himself to shoot up Italian women and children.

Sounds potentially libelous (“trigger happy Yankee”) to me. Also sounds a bit ungrateful, given the number of American servicepersons killed and wounded, including P-51 Mustang aviators, liberating Italy from Mussolini’s tyranny, and later Hitler’s tyranny.

bobby wrote:
As for it being Mussolini's Italy, again another error by you.

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
… you seem to think you are a clever geezer

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
Tell me… how long after an armistice is ratified and many of the previous beligarants are now fighting on the same side as yours, cease to be the enemy.

No.

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:20 pm

Bobby said

you seem to think you are a clever geezer

ROC said
Erroneous.

So you dont think yourself to be a clever geezer. For once, just once we are in agreement, in fact i will risk a bit of moderation by saying. I bet you are the life and soul of a party, esspecially if you talk as you write and correct any gramatical misstake people might make..
and as for your final word "no" really says it all.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:36 pm

bobby wrote:
Rockonwatzit.

Your intentional disrespect continues.

bobby wrote:
Why instead of putting your hands up and say, Yes we yanks have been bastards, but now are only little bastards.

Erroneous, disrespectful, and ungrateful.

bobby wrote:
As for that Colin Powel, if he doesn't agree with what I have said, then let him sue me.

Whatever Colin chooses to do or not to do, your statement regarding Colin Powel, in my opinion, is potentially libelous.

bobby wrote:
Strange isn't it…

No.

bobby wrote:
… how easy it is for you to defend attrocities

I’ve defended no atrocities.

bobby wrote:
Everything I have said about US attrocities in both Italy and Vietnam is common knowledge…

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
Regarding Italy may I point you to a book, Titled "ITALY'S SORROW by James Holland, published by Harper Press.

No.

bobby wrote:
All I said about The USA's viscious war against the Vietnamese is also common knowledge…

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
… another trait of American Warfare "Friendly Fire"

Friendly fire is a problem facing all troops of all nations in all wars.

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:39 pm

ROC said.

I assume your “both” refers to Shirina and RockOnBrother, neither of whom has “shown [ourself] to be nasty as each other.”

Then I can only assume one is worse than the other. Could you be so kind as to tel who that might be.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:43 pm

bobby wrote:
Bobby said

you seem to think you are a clever geezer

ROC said
Erroneous.

So you dont think yourself to be a clever geezer.

Correct.

bobby wrote:
… esspecially if you talk as you write and correct any gramatical misstake people might make.

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
and as for your final word "no" really says it all.

Oh?

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:46 pm

ROC said
Friendly fire is a problem facing all troops of all nations in all wars.

Yes esspecially if the Yanks are in close proximity, The USA have turned friendly fire into a bloody SciencePray tell why wouldnt you want to read a factual book, is it, that it would take you from your fantacy world.

By the way, with regards to respect. Respect is something one has to earn, and you aint done that yet.

by bobby Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:49 pm

ROC. you will not get any reply''s from me as I have to get ready to go out, and in the words of another bit of US fiction " I'll be back"

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:50 pm

bobby wrote:
ROC said.

I assume your “both” refers to Shirina and RockOnBrother, neither of whom has “shown [ourself] to be nasty as each other.”

Then I can only assume one is worse than the other.

You are free to erroneously “only assume” whatever you choose to erroneously “only assume.”

bobby wrote:
[Would] you be so kind as to tel who that might be.

No.

by Guest Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:58 pm

bobby wrote:
ROC said
Friendly fire is a problem facing all troops of all nations in all wars.

Yes

Correct.

bobby wrote:
… esspecially if the Yanks are in close proximity

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
The USA have turned friendly fire into a bloody SciencePray…

Erroneous.

bobby wrote:
… tell why wouldnt you want to read a factual book…

No.

bobby wrote:
By the way, with regards to respect. Respect is something one has to earn, and you aint done that yet.

Oh?

by Shirina Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:14 pm

The Italian Government signed the armistice papers on Sept 3rd 1943, and declared publicly Sept 8th 1943. The first Allied landings in Italian Mainland where at Salerno on Sept 3rd 1943

Italy was still occupied by German forces. Why else do you think Italy needed invaded in the first place? Even today, urban warfare, or house-to-house fighting is considered one of the worst forms of warfare. The second worst fear when the Iraq war began was that Saddam would pull his army into Baghdad and turn the fight into a slug-fest. Prevailing doctrine in 1943 was to instead level the towns and villages from the air. Guess what, that was Britain's doctrine, as well.

I find it rather interesting how the anti-American Brits always manage to locate and isolate WWII campaigns that only America was involved in and level criticism against the conduct of those campaigns. Never mind that Britain has carried out the precise same tactics elsewhere when operating alone or with her allies. For instance, it's perfectly acceptable for Britain to pound away at French towns and villages with Lancaster bombers in advance of the invasion of Normandy, but the tactic becomes mysteriously unacceptable when America bombs Italian towns and villages in advance of the invasion of Italy.

Another attrocity was the bombing of Monte Casino. The pilots for this raid where Roman Catholic volunteers, this was in the hope that they would only do what had to be done, they where ordered to bomb and bomb only, yet that wasn't enough for some of the trigger happy gunners and many of them strafed the monestary as well.

First of all, they were not all Roman Catholic volunteers. More accurately, any Roman Catholic pilot was free to opt out of the mission. It was believed that Monte Casino was filled with Germans who were sitting up there informing Kesselring and other field commanders every move American forces were making. They wouldn't have bombed it to begin with if they believed otherwise, so it is not as if American pilots strafed the monestary hoping to bag a few priests. That's assuming this actually happened considering the bombing attacks were made by B-17s, B-24s, and B-26s, none of which are strafing aircraft. It should also be pointed out that it was the Indians who wanted the place bombed. General Clark, whom you have thoroughly maligned, opted not to bomb the monestary, but the final decision to do so came from a Brit - General Sir Alexander. I have never heard of any order claiming it was to be bombed and bombed only, an order that doesn't make much sense when you're dropping "blockbuster" bombs onto it, not to mention the constant artillery bombardment by over 1000 field guns. Yes, bombs and artillery are fine, but not bullets!

So Sharina I find it Bizzare that you seem to think it OK, for American airmen to shoot, bomb and kill Italian Civilians that where at war with the allies (past tense). Surely an amistice means that Italy at the time of the attrocities where not the enemy

Italy was still an occupied nation (as previously said). It wasn't as if Italy surrendered and suddenly the sky was filled with rainbows and chirping birds. WWII was not fought with today's morality, something people who make your type of argument quite often forget. While these "atrocities" were going on, Bomber Harris was pushing to continue terror-bombing German cities. Churchill stood back and allowed Coventry to be leveled to avoid alerting the Germans that their Enigma code had been broken. Point being is that civilian casualties were not of primary concern in WWII, which is why more civilians than soldiers died in it. Oh, we can look back almost 70 years with our more "evolved" 21st Century sensibilities and make accusations of "atrocities," and Herman Goering said then during the Nuremberg Trials what you're essentially saying now. Bur your penchant for isolating almost insignificant American "atrocities" in a war filled with them on both sides is rather ... disingenuous.

Surely an amistice means that Italy at the time of the attrocities where not the enemy

Did that armistice include all of the Wehrmacht troops in Italy as well? Did they agree to an armistice?

and I can only assume that what also happened at My Lai in Vietnam was also OK by Y'All as, some of the people in Vietnam where also at war with the USA.

Oh here we go ... I was wondering how long it would take before My Lai was brought up. Now we're comparing apples to oranges - Vietnam to WWII. Because this is such a ridiculous comparison, for so many reasons that it would require a separate post (if not a book) to clarify them all, I'm not going to travel down this path except to say ...

The My Lai massacre was a result of a global superpower invading a small country in order to attempt to keep it within it's sphere of influence.

And what do you suppose the communists were doing? Oh, that's right - it's perfectly fine for communists in North Vietnam, supported by Russia and China, to invade South Vietnam. That's as right as rain, apparently. Things only become unacceptable when American forces .... invade? Now, wait a minute. Did America invade South Vietnam? Did the South Vietnamese want the American forces to stay away? At any rate, your logic seems to suggest that any nation can happily invade another unless it's America.

The My Lai massacre was the one that was most widely known, but it was one of hundreds of similar massacres.

Proof? Link? Evidence? Etc.?

As for it being Mussolini's Italy, again another error by you. Mussolini.s power ended with the signing of the armistice and that was back on 3rd Sept 1943, by the time the war reached the north, where Rimini is, it had moved on almost a Year.

At which point it became Hitler's Italy. By the way, I seem to recall British forces being there, as well.

Or could I be totally wrong and all of your bombing shooting a killing of inocent civilians be put down to another trait of American Warfare "Friendly Fire"

LOL! Right ... because only American weapons kill civilians. When the rest of the world goes to war, they use sticks as guns, shout BANG! at their enemies, and they fall down and count to 20 before getting up again.

Pray tell why wouldnt you want to read a factual book

Factual in your case = any piece of information that conforms to your preconceived premise. In other words, it's like drawing a conclusion first and looking for the evidence second. I mean, instead of being angry with the Germans or Mussolini, you pick on your allies instead. That makes about as much sense as the proverbial screen door on a submarine. You get all hot and bothered at Americans because your auntie was wounded by an American pilot and ignore Hitler, Nazis, Mussolini, fascists, and genocidal maniacs. You'll growl and whine like a banshee about America's invasion of Vietnam but conveniently ignore Italy's invasion of Abyssinia. You should have been a surgeon for the way you conveniently cut out the historical bits that meet with your pre-formed conclusions.

by Humanist Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:08 pm

Commonwealth 'network for future' - Page 2 SDThyagarajan

^ Sgt Sayanapuram Duraiswamy Thyagarajan (Center) with No 263 Squadron, RAF, Whirlwind P7094 HE-T . The CO Flt Lt Geofferey B Warnes is second left and the Adjutant , F/L EC Owens is at first left . Other pilots in the Squadron are Canadian, Austarlian and West Indian.The sqn converted to Typhoons in Feb 44. Later promoted to Pilot Officer (177663 RAF), Thyagarajan was shot down and killed over France on 26th August 1944

Hmmm, no mention of my Indian cousins then? I find this on many occasions. The whole India thing has always been played down, I suggest that people visit Brighton and the sites there with links to WWII. Visiting these sorts of places are rather moving at the best of times, but hey its an eye opener.

by jackthelad Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:35 pm

India is a member of the commonwealth nations, i don't think anyone forgets India's role in the second world war. Two million Indians fought in that war, in Europe as well as Asia, against the Japanese. British troops, survivers of Dunkirk were sent to India. I know that for a fact because two of my uncles were sent there before being transfered to Burma, they were part of the 14 Army (the Forgotten Army).
Didn't see any European countries laying wreaths at the Cenotaph this morning, they were all Commonwealth countries.

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:04 pm

QUOTE: ".... it's perfectly acceptable for Britain to pound away at French towns and villages with Lancaster bombers in advance of the invasion of Normandy

A policy insisted upon by General Eisenhower as a prerequisite of US Forces going onto the invasion beaches in Normandy codenamed
Sword Beach
Juno Beach
Gold Beach
Omaha Beach
Pointe du Hoc
and Utah Beach

by Sponsored content